RFC: KDE Bugzilla Bugs Expiration

[Allen Winter]

On Friday, July 31, 2015 07:29:53 PM Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Friday 31 July 2015 12:00:22 Allen Winter wrote:
> > On Friday, July 31, 2015 04:01:37 PM Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 31. Juli 2015 14:05:09 CEST, laurent Montel wrote:
> > > >> Especially for KDE PIM, given the size of the userbase and the amount
> > > >> of
> > > >> developers (3), bugs often take more than a year to get to and
> > > >> to be fixed.
> > > > 
> > > > +1
> > > > As Daniel wrote we have a lot of bug and a very small team.
> > > > So we can't able to fix bug in 1 year.
> > > > And I don't want to see all bugs closed after 1 year because it's useful
> > > > to
> > > > read all bug and sometime it takes me some months/years to fix bugs.
> > > 
> > > Wishes:
> > > -------
> > > should *never* be closed automatically - either a Human declares them
> > > WONTFIX or it's "patches welcome" - they may however be resubmissioned
> > > again once a year "is this actually reasonable?" so a developer can say
> > > "what a bullshit of an idea" and close it ;-)
> > > 
> > > Bugs:
> > > -----
> > > should get regular (every 6 months after inactivity?) updates like "is
> > > this still an issue", setting them "WAITING FOR INFO" and if not
> > > responded within the next month (and reopened) be closed "WORKS FOR ME"
> > > This will eg. remind developers to "oh, yes - I fixed a dupe of this 3
> > > month ago, totally forgot about this one".
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Autoclosing a bug that maybe has not ever even been touched by a developer
> > > is a blunt offense and teaches users to either start nagging (in fear of
> > > getting their bug closed) or being frustrated (to avoid 4-letter words
> > > ;-)
> > > 
> > > Also "fixing" issues by ignoring them is really bad style.
> > 
> > agree
> > dvartil's suggestion to follow the fedora model, in combination with the
> > 6month nag seems pretty good.
> 
> I do not see the point in implementing both. I also do not see the point in 
> nagging the user after a certain period of time if nobody else ever cared to 
> comment on the bug. Feels a bit like little kids asking "Are we there yet?" 
> over and over again.
> 
you're probably right.

In any event, I'm against the original proposal.

> I do see the point in Daniel's proposal because the time a release goes EOL 
> feels like a sensible point in time for asking whether the bug still exists.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ingo